U.S. Department of Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced Friday that he is resigning from his role, but a successor has not been named.

Chu, a scientist and Nobel Prize winner who assumed office in January 2009 as the 12th U.S. Secretary of Energy, had planned to leave for a few months now. When President Barack Obama took office after the November 2012 election, Chu told Obama that he wanted to return to his academic life in California, where he served as director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

Chu wrote a letter of resignation, which was published on Friday. He listed the department's many accomplishments while he was in office, such as the doubling of clean, renewable energy from wind and solar; helping one million low-income homeowners weatherize their homes; building, opening and retooling more than a dozen auto manufacturing plants for hybrids and EVs; launching the first national scale rooftop solar project, which will include commercial buildings in up to 28 states, and giving grants/loans to over 1,300 companies through the Recovery Act.

However, Chu's time as secretary hasn't been all roses and rainbows. The Department of Energy had been given $36 billion in stimulus money to spend, and Chu was criticized for giving some of the money to clean energy companies as loan guarantees and grants when they eventually filed for bankruptcy.

One of the most notable failures was Solyndra, a Silicon Valley-based solar panel company that received $535 million from DOE in 2009. The move was set to stimulate economic growth through environmentally friendly jobs, but in September 2011, Solyndra declared bankruptcy -- laying off 1,100 workers.

The biggest issue was that the money was given despite previous warnings of Solyndra's viability. Only days before the final approval, an email predicted that the project would run out of money in 2011. Another email from government staffers questioned the model the government was using, but said "given the time pressure we are under to sign off on Solyndra, we don't have time to change the model."

Reports state that the White House pushed the loan ahead despite warnings in order to meet political deadlines.

There were other green energy loan failures too, such as a $43 million loan guarantee to Beacon Power in 2010 (the company filed for bankruptcy in November 2011) and a $118.5 million grant to Ener1 Inc.'s subsidiary EnerDel in 2009 (Ener1 Inc. filed for bankruptcy in January 2012).

Nevertheless, Chu has made great strides in efficient energy in the U.S. He said only 1 percent of the 1,300 companies filed for bankruptcy. He's also pushing for the continued support of green energy into the future.

"The test for America's policy makers will be whether they are willing to accept a few failures in exchange for many successes," wrote Chu.

Chu plans to keep his role through the end of February, but will then return to California. A successor has not been named yet, but a few candidates are former North Dakota Sen. Byron Dorgan, former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm and former San Francisco hedge fund manager Tom Steyer.

The DOE has done way better then the average hedge fund. So there was much ado about the failures, but the press pretty much ignored the successes. This is pretty normal, no one talks about the government programs that work, just the ones that don't.

All those haters and climate change deniers are of course happy with this. I just wish he was willing to stick around for Obama's second term. I believe he did a good job for the American People.

Hey, asshole, last time I checked hedge funds aren't using the taxpayers money.

quote: I believe he did a good job for the American People.

And you're basing this on what? This country has a looming energy crisis on the horizon, gas prices are through the roof. I mean exactly what metric are you using to say he's done a "good" job.

quote: So there was much ado about the failures, but the press pretty much ignored the successes.

The press which has been 100% (outside of Fox) in the tank for Obama, has carried his message as if it was their own, has obediently played down scandal after scandal...has now IGNORED the successes?? HAHA ok idiot, sure.

Huh? How would cutting our oil imports make the price of oil go down? I assume you mean that we would make up the difference in domestic production, but you assume (incorrectly) that because it is produced domestically, it will be cheaper (?). The only way that would happen is if you nationalize one of the oil companies....The original poster was claiming OPEC would cut its production to keep prices higher (they have done this several times), not increase their production, as you stated. But go on and continue your tirade about liberals before you can even complete a logical statement.

Oil is sold on a global market. The USA accounts for roughly 10% of global oil production. It would take significant effort to increase this production to a point that one could flood the global market and force the price down. As the original poster said, OPEC countries can just cut their production to keep global supply levels steady (they make up a large majority of oil producers). Furthermore, much of our new production is in shale or deep ater, which becomes economically un-viable if the price heads gets too low.

If you really want to talk oil prices, get hard limits on oil futures trading and reign in speculators that have taken over the market.

Reclaimer has watched too much Fox News so his brain cannot handle the idea that Oil is a global resource traded globally where the US is, in reality, a minor player. Domestic supply also does not reduce prices since any company is required, as a duty to its shareholders under law, to sell that Oil for the best price possible, i.e. the global price.

The point of domestic Oil supply is not to decrease price (OPEC would disagree with any such mechanism and restrict production as necessary) but to increase energy security, i.e. ensuring the US has a domestic supply in the event of anything interfering with or restricting foreign supplies (e.g. Iran blockading the Straits of Hormuz).

I'm also curious about his shock. The US has directly engineered increasing Oil prices by meddling in the Middle East (uncertainty breeds speculation which breeds volatile prices). There is also unprecedented demand from developing nations like China which will push up price (basic economics). Short of nuking Asia, oil prices are going to increase except for those times when OPEC increases supply to level off the surge.

Believing in obvious lies is just telling of some people's ignorance and inability to think for themselves.

I get to choose if my money goes to a hedge fund. I do not get to choose if my money goes to the DoE. For that reason alone their roles should be entirely different, their goals should be entirely different, and their outcomes should be entirely different. Comparing government agency spending to private investment funds screams: YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG

Not too mention when a hedge fund does have a winner they get a piece of the pie - usually a big piece. When we taxpayers "get" to fund a winner by dart board happenstance we don't get a piece of the pie. If we are lucky we get the original money back.